This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

Re: **BREAKING** U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Rule on Gay Marriage

Originally Posted by SENSIBLE PATRIO

How long do you think the people who are a majority against ssm will put up with activist judges?

Sorry, but they aren't activist judges and the only ones on the right that are upset enough to even consider "sucession" over SSM are a VERY TINY MINORITY throwing temper tantrums like a baby. Here's a hint, the MAJORITY of the country doesn't really care if it gets legalized. I think some on the right need a WAAAAAAAmbulance.

Re: **BREAKING** U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Rule on Gay Marriage

The Justices let stand the rulings of the 10th, 7th, and 4th Federal Circuit Court of Appeals which OVERTURN State bans.

That is not a "ruling" in favor of States being able to ban Civil Marriage based on gender.

The cases were from the 10th, 7th, and 4th Circuit courts. None of the cases rejected Monday was from the 9th Circuit.

None of the dozen or so Judges (District or Appeals) was queer.

The judges represented a mixture of "liberal" and "conservative" judges appointed by both Democrat and Republican Presidents. Judges such as Posner, long considered to be a conservative judge in the 7th Circuit court and appointed by Ronald Reagan.

>>>>

You still have a majority of appointed judges not elected judges making law, that is not how the founders wanted it, they used an ballot referendum, got the signatures, and voted on it, and the 12 men overturned the will of the people, it should be considered criminal.

Re: **BREAKING** U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Rule on Gay Marriage

Originally Posted by TheNextEra

Sorry, but they aren't activist judges and the only ones on the right that are upset enough to even consider "sucession" over SSM are a VERY TINY MINORITY throwing temper tantrums like a baby. Here's a hint, the MAJORITY of the country doesn't really care if it gets legalized. I think some on the right need a WAAAAAAAmbulance.

You are full of **** then why did so many states have to have their referendums overturned jackwagon, why did the judges even intercede it was judicial activism that overturned a matter that was voted on, one side won and liberal ass hats couldn't handle it.

Re: **BREAKING** U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Rule on Gay Marriage

Originally Posted by SENSIBLE PATRIO

You are full of **** then why did so many states have to have their referendums overturned jackwagon, why did the judges even intercede it was judicial activism that overturned a matter that was voted on, one side won and liberal ass hats couldn't handle it.

That wasn't what you said. You said the majority would want to secede over it. Sorry people don't care that much about SSM being legal to do that. And no they aren't activist judges. With each state that SSM becomes legal, I toast to the anti-SSM with a big "Suck it".

Re: **BREAKING** U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Rule on Gay Marriage

Originally Posted by SENSIBLE PATRIO

You still have a majority of appointed judges not elected judges making law, that is not how the founders wanted it, they used an ballot referendum, got the signatures, and voted on it, and the 12 men overturned the will of the people, it should be considered criminal.

The States wrote the SSM bans. The Judges did not. The judges are ruling that the laws written by the states are unconstitutional. That is their job as described by the Constitution.

What laws have the Judges written?

No where in the Constitution does it say through vote or through referendum or through state Constitution can rights of the people be voted away...NO where.